November 14, 2006

Jim Lehrer

The anchor of PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer talks about his latest book, “The Phony Marine.”

Guests:

Corey Woods - Director, Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona

Jim Lehrer - Anchor, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Heather Lineberry - ASU Art Museum

View Transcript

Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon -- voters have passed a ban on smoking in all public places with just a few exceptions. When does that ban go into effect? How will it be enforced? We'll look at the statewide smoking ban. Plus, Jim Lehrer has anchored PBS NewsHour since 1975. One of the most respected and accomplished journalists in the country. Jim Lehrer talks about his latest novel, "The Phony Marine", the results of last week's election and the future of journalism. And "New American City: Artists Look Forward" is the featured exhibition at the ASU Art Museum. It explores the rapid changes and the growth of the city of Phoenix. Those stories next on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by contributions from the friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening, welcome to Horizon, I'm Michael Grant. Congressman J.D. Hayworth is conceding the race for the fifth congressional district. The six term congressman put up a statement on his website, congratulating Democrat Harry Mitchell for his likely victory. Hayworth says that while there are still tens of thousands of votes left to count, it has become apparent that it is unlikely he will get enough votes to win the election. Hayworth trails Mitchell by 65 hundred votes. The top four staff members of the state senate will not be coming back for the new legislative session. Incoming Senate President Tim Bee has terminated the chief of staff/general counsel, the operations/legal adviser, senior policy adviser and the communications and policy adviser. Those four staff members will reportedly be leaving the Senate by the end of the week. A group of individuals and organizations filed a lawsuit today in the state supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of two statutes, enacted by the state legislature last spring. Those laws authorize vouchers at religious and other private schools for a limited number of children who are in foster care or are disabled. The case was brought against Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and State Treasurer David Petersen. We will hear from both sides of this issue on tomorrow's Horizon. Last week, voters passed a statewide ban on smoking in most public places. That ban includes the interior of bars and restaurants. Some business owners have expressed concerns that the ban will run customers away, cause them to lose money, possibly even shut down. The measure includes a per-pack tax on cigarettes. That provision will go into effect the soonest. Here now to talk about the new ban on smoking in public places is Corey Woods. He is the director of Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona. Corey, welcome to the program.

Corey Woods:
Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Michael Grant:
You know, I'm trying to remember my election law. I seem to recall we have to wait for what? The official canvas by the secretary of state and then the governor declares it?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. One of these we talked about was the election would be certified in about approximately 30 days and at that point the two-cent tobacco tax would actually go into effect. The smoke-free provisions of the law of Smoke-Free Arizona will not actually go into effect until May 1 of 2007.

Michael Grant:
And the delay is for what reason?

Corey Woods:
The delay is to allow business owners to kind of get comfortable with the law. You know, this whole thing isn't supposed to be punitive with us. It's about education. We want to allow people to have sign postings properly; we want to set up an 800 number, a website, in order for people to be properly educated about this law. We don't want to start fining people $100 to $500 for infractions. It's for proper education and to allow people to sort of get comfortable with the idea and not just--- you know, some people came up to me and said, well Corey, why don't you just have it go into effect November 8? That's not fair to Arizona business owners and that's not fair to the citizens of Arizona. We wanted to give them enough time to get comfortable with the law and provide proper education.

Michael Grant:
Now, you've got a two-cent a pack tax. That funds enforcement activities by the Department of Health Services. I thought that 206 campaign ripped off a pretty good line about the Maytag repairman as we were discussing earlier. I assume part of the delay as well will allow Department of Health Services to ramp up on the enforcement side of this thing?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. The two-cent per pack tobacco tax will allow for approximately $4.7 million to go to the Department of Health Services to have them fund this. Also the Department of Health Services can in mutual cooperation with the local county come up with a way to enforce the law. One of the things we didn't want to happen obviously was- a lot of people talked about-- there was a lot of misinformation obviously spread by the 206 people concerning the issue. They were saying that, you know, we don't want the police force being distracted away from crimes like muggings and shootings to worry about cigarettes. And we didn't, either. Our main thing is we obviously talked to having the Department of Health Services do this because we don't want our local police being overburdened and having to deal with issues like tobacco and cigarettes, things like that in bars. But the $4.7 million from the two-cent per pack tobacco tax will pay for the enforcement.

Michael Grant: Corey, why wasn't 206 a better solution on this thing? Why wasn't-- particularly in a bar setting allowing a bar owner and for that matter, adults, to make a decision and say, okay, well I'm going to allow it here and incidentally I'm going to post it and if you don't like it, don't come in. Why wasn't that a better solution?

Corey Woods:
Well, the biggest concern with us was the public health issue. Approximately 53,000 people each year die of issues-causes-- of diseases actually related to secondhand smoke. The American Lung Association for instance is a nonpartisan well-respected health organization. And we only do things related to the science. One of the things when I was first hired was I was told explicitly by the people who I worked for we don't do things to support political agenda or political party or candidate. But if the science shows it's a legitimate public health issue concern we have to then act to take care of that. One of the things we saw were waiters and waitresses, for instance, in bars were two times more likely to develop respiratory illnesses, things of that nature. And so one of the things we wanted to do obviously was when we saw this kind of issue in the 53,000 people each year that were being affected by this and the kind of illnesses such as retarded fetal syndrome, asthma, lower respiratory illnesses, we decided it was at that point we decided to step in along with the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to do something about this issue.

Michael Grant:
Corey, I understand. But unfortunately a lot of people put themselves in a lot of dumb positions. And we go ahead and we let them put themselves in dumb positions. Why does this call for this level of government intervention?

Corey Woods:
Well, one of the things we look at, a lot of times people talk to us about the bar and restaurant issue. People will say, well Corey, if, you know, someone wants to go into an establishment like this what's the issue? They obviously have that choice. However, businesses and the public operate with some sort of mutually cooperative relationship. If -- we obviously have food regulations, for instance. We make sure people are selling wholesome food and drink in their bars. Meat has to be kept at a certain temperature. We have to make sure that the kitchen is clean and not infested with rats or anything like that or mice. So obviously in those kinds of issues where those are public health issues, we have organizations that come in and regulate that and make sure that everything looks okay there. We obviously don't want the public getting sick in certain kinds of establishments. And it's the same kind of thing we looked at in terms of secondhand smoke. We considered it to be a legitimate health risk and we thought in that kind of same situation along the same line, whether it's serving wholesome food and drink, that the people, the patrons of the restaurant as well as the workers have a right to live and work in a clean environment. The main issue I always look at is that we don't feel that people should have to choose between their health and their job. And that's the main issue I tried to look at especially.

Michael Grant:
Now, one aspect of 201 is localities can go with a more stringent measure. Looking around the state obviously there are some no smoking ordinances. Is there any measure-- my feel is that 201 is fairly consistent with most of the ordinances that are in place. For example, here in Tempe and some other localities. Is that roughly correct?

Corey Woods:
I would say that the 201 ban is very consistent with the bans in Tempe, Flagstaff and Sedona. The 206 ban I do think was sort of modeled- well, they claim, after the ordinances currently in Tucson and Chandler. But I think that ours was definitely -- when we first crafted ours we looked at a lot of the smoke free ordinances around- just nationwide, and we tried to look at what was right about those and what was wrong with those. And so, but ours was definitely crafted after the ones we saw that were right. We added some things, took some things away.

Michael Grant:
You know, Jim Lehrer as the host of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which precedes Horizon here on Eight. Lehrer is one of the most respected journalists in the country. He has been nicknamed "the dean of moderators" by those who have appreciated his call for objectivity in the newsroom. He is also an author. His latest novel is "The Phony Marine". Lehrer was in Phoenix over the weekend to participate in the 27th Annual Author's luncheon. Larry Lemmons caught up with him at the Westin Kierland.

Larry Lemmons:
We are taping this on Veterans Day so I want to wish you a Happy Veterans' Day because I know that you are a former Marine. Well, of course in terms of your speech you are always.

Jim Lehrer:
Always a Marine.

Larry Lemmons:
That's right.

Jim Lehrer:
Same to you.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you very much. Well, not a Marine.

Jim Lehrer:
No, but a veteran.

Larry Lemmons:
Absolutely. I'd like to bring that around to your latest novel "A Phony Marine" which is why you're here in Arizona today. It's my understanding that a man buys a medal, is that correct?

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah. He's posing as a marine. It's a man in his late 50's, Vietnam-era person who chose not to go into the military. Not a draft dodger or anything. He just didn't go. His number didn't get called, he didn't volunteer. He had always thought he might want to be a marine but he never did do it. And now, forward, he's a man in his late 50's. He's selling clothes, men's clothes in Washington, D.C. and one thing leads to another. His life has been kind of what you'd call a level life. Not a lot's happened. And -- but he's a successful clothing salesman but that's about it. Any rate, he, on the internet, buys a Silver Star medal, the entire set, which means the medal itself, a ribbon that you would wear and then also a little lapel pin that you would wear with a civilian code that you put in your lapel and anybody seeing it would say oh, my goodness, he won a Silver Star, which is an interesting- you know, it has- it brings--

Larry Lemmons:
It has a very specific connotation.

Jim Lehrer:
Right. That this person had to do something heroic or he or she would not be wearing this Silver Star. At any rate, he starts wearing it and of course draws attention. People start expecting, oh, my goodness. Hey. Hey. So he creates a story for himself. And he kind of recreates himself as a former marine. Gets a haircut, loses his paunch, gets in shape, learns how to cuss, does all those things, gets some history and kind of makes up his own history. He kind of copies the story of the real marine that he got off the internet, the real marine who actually won the Silver Star that he bought off this e-bay auction. And it works. I mean, he's able to pass himself off as a marine. And without going into any more of the detail of the story --

Larry Lemmons:
Don't give away the plot.

Jim Lehrer: Don't want to give away the plot. But what it does is create expectations. If you are expected to be a jerk then sometimes people act like jerks. If you're expected to be a really good person you act like a good person. And it's the power of expectations to actually have a cause, I mean, have an effect is kind of what this book is about. Because he-- because people expect him to be a hero, because he wears a Silver Star he gets himself in a couple of situations where he has to--

Larry Lemmons:
Live up to it.

Jim Lehrer:
Live up to his expectations. That's essentially what the book is about.

Larry Lemmons:
What prompted you to write this book considering you were a marine? Was there something specific?

Jim Lehrer:
Several little things I think that kind of build up. It's a long, involved story. To make it very brief, I was introduced by somebody making a speech. And he had misunderstood what my biography was. And he said to this group, two, 300 people. He said, here's Jim Lehrer. You may know he's this and this and this. But what you may not know is that he was a combat infantry officer, a platoon commander in the Korean War. And I saw the look on the faces of these people. And there was this kind of admiration, whatever it is. I saw it and I didn't want it to go away. And I didn't -- what really stuck with me -- and that was many years ago, Larry. And before this book actually started working on this book. But what stuck in me was that -- and I did correct him. I did say, no, no, I was a marine officer but I was not in combat.

Larry Lemmons:
But you were tempted.

Jim Lehrer:
Exactly. It's the temptation to be something you're not because of what comes with that. And I -- it kind of stuck in my mind. So anyhow, one thing led to another and I finally got around to writing the book.

Larry Lemmons:
Well let's talk about the election. I know that polls suggested before that democrats could capture both the House and the Senate. People didn't know if that could happen. Of course, it did happen. What do you think is in store for America in the next two years?

Jim Lehrer:
Well, it's kind of complicated in some ways but it's also very simple, it seems to me. I don't have any unique wisdom to bring to this except that I think the voters said is, hey, all you people out there on the left, all you people out there over on the right, well, there are 80\% of us in the middle who are some of us are slightly conservative and some of us are slightly liberal and there are some of us slightly this and that and whatever. We don't like how you extremists have been running the country is what it really boils down to, and the extremists meaning not just President Bush and his folks but also the liberals. In other words, the idea that games are being played, political games, rather than governing. And I think the country just said, no, no, let's govern now. And we're less interested. Most Americans are not ideologically bent, let's face it. They're issue oriented. And the Iraq War -- I've had people since I've been in Phoenix said to me, you know, I'm a huge republican. I'm a huge supporter of George W. Bush but I'm sick of this war. And you can put that in any context you want to. This is being driven -- this election was driven by ordinary folks in the middle who just want -- they're not interested necessarily in a right wing solution to the war or a left wing solution to the war. They just want something better. They want it fixed. They want somebody with an idea. And hey, more importantly they want the people in charge to take charge and get it together and work together to get these things resolved. War is only one of the things. There are many, many other things involved, too. And I think that's the message. And what this means in the long run could be that in 2008, if these people don't do anything -- in other words, if they go into a lager head situation and can't get anything done they're going to throw them out, too. I mean, I think the people have said, we're just sick of this. We're sick of this kind of bickering. And not only bickering but the nastiness of the campaign. You know, the nastiness of this campaign I thought was extraordinary.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it the worst that you'd ever seen?

Jim Lehrer:
I have never seen-

Larry Lemmons:
Really?

Jim Lehrer:
Oh, yeah. I mean, it wasn't so much that it was- that people said nastier things. It's just that everybody was saying nasty things about everybody else. They weren't really talking about, hey now, vote for me because I have a solution to the immigration problem. Vote for me because I think this would be the better way to do-- to handle Iraq. It was always, vote for me because this other guy's a crook. And then when you examine what he or she did, you find it's all gray. In other words, it's the idea that when you're running in politics the bottle is always half full negatively. And I think the public's sick of that. And I think that's one of the-- I may be dead wrong about this. Maybe it's hope as much as it is reality. But I know I'm sick of it. And that and a nickel gets you four cents. But I think the public's with me on this one.

Larry Lemmons:
Well even your answer here suggests to me your objectivity. In other parts of the world, Britain for example, you have publications that are very specifically, politically left or right. Lately, relatively recently, you've seen that in America as well. I won't name any names.

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But not The NewsHour, of course. I mean The NewsHour has always been held up as an example of perfect objectivity, both now with The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer and also the old McNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. Why do you think that's important?

Jim Lehrer:
Look, there are three legitimate forms of journalism. There are straight news reporting, analysis and opinion. And essentially, okay, what happened, what does it mean, and what should I think about it? The news hour, PBS, I think all of PBS should be and The NewsHour definitely is, should be in the first part of that in terms of what we do ourselves. Then we can bring analyzers on and we can bring opinion people on. But they should be separated functions. Same people should not do all three of them. And everything should be carefully labeled. I believe that the first job of journalism is to tell the folks what happened. What happened? Not what it all means, all that sort of stuff. Just tell them exactly what happened. And then everybody has a shared knowledge on which then they can then find out what it means and they can separate on opinions and all that sort of stuff. If you don't have the platform from which to jump off on to, on to a blog or onto a call in show or Jon to Jon Stewart or whatever then everything gets distorted from the beginning. And I think as some of these other mediums, other -- let me put this gently but some of the other purveyors of the news, they're running scared. They've got so many competitors now because of the internet. And everybody is worried about this and that. Oh, my god, they're not going to read newspapers. They're not going to watch television news anymore. So what are they doing? They're distorting their function. And in the process they are eliminating their function. Because for instance, somebody says to me, oh, I don't watch the news hour. It's not entertaining. And I say, yeah, you're exactly right, my friend. And if you want to be entertained you go to the circus. You don't watch the news. You don't -- particularly don't watch the news hour. I mean, that's not our function. And I mean, Garrison Keillo is the one who says it beautifully. I was at a dinner once many years ago. He was at one of these big journalism dinners. I was in the crowd. He said, you want to have a short life in journalism? You go down the entertainment route. Because the clowns and the snake oil salesmen and the movie stars, they're much better at entertaining than you are. Nobody is better at reporting than you are. So why don't you stay in your own business if you want to stay? I'm paraphrasing that but I believe that with all my heart and soul. And some of these folks are going to -- are learning it the hard way. I think we're seeing this in network television news. I think CBS for instance made a decision they could change the nature of the nightly news program, for getting that these 30, 40 million people who tune in to watch the nightly news program, what do they tune in for? To see the news, to hear the news. They don't turn in to be entertained. They wouldn't they wanted to be entertained. I'm not suggesting anything bad about Katie Couric or CBS but they better be careful. Because they are -- in their own hands they are fooling with the instruments of their own destruction if they are not careful.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Jim Lehrer for visiting us today.

Jim Lehrer:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
The future of Phoenix is being chronicled through the eyes of Phoenix artists at ASU Art Museum's exhibition -- new American city: artist's look forward. The exhibition distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities by focusing on the desert environment, geographic limitations and astronomical growth that the city of Phoenix has to offer. The exhibition explores the role of artists and the art being produced in this context.

Merry Lucero: Imagine the future of Phoenix. But what do we want our city to look like? What distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities? These are the questions asked in Arizona State University's art competition, "New American City, Artists Look Forward." A group of 23 Maricopa County-based artists were chosen to not only contribute something reflective of the rapid growth of the city but to create artwork that will spark ideas and feelings about the here and now of our changing city.

Heather Lineberry:
Since this is such an important moment in our history, you talk to politicians, economists, developers, academics, geographers, art activists, activists. They're all clear that this is a time we need to consider who we are and who we want to be in the future.

Merry Lucero: Works range from installations of land art and art with new technologies to paintings and photography that reflect personal impressions of living and working in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Heather Lineberry:
The competition features 12 drawings by Wellington Rider known as Duke Rider. Duke has said that architectural drawings should be an opportunity for artists to innovate, experiment, consider our built environment to really consider the possibilities broadly. And that's what he does in this series of drawings about sky harbor airport. He takes into account future changes that are going to have to happen. Are we going to have to build closer and closer to the airport itself? Are we going to be able to drive into the airport in the future? Maybe not. So how are we going to handle people actually arriving at the airport by car? So he covers the range of possibilities with the future development of the airport.

Merry Lucero:
Future developments are indeed thriving. But the desire to take a look back seems to be resurfacing as well.

Heather Lineberry:
Matthew Moore is a fourth generation farmer here in the greater Phoenix area. And he's also an artist. This piece was really his exploration of what the growth in the valley mean toss his family's way of life. And yet it's not a white. He realizes that on his land are going to be built houses that is someone's American dream.

Merry Lucero:
Matthew Paweski city bases his work on his experiences as a sign painter here in the city of Phoenix.

Matthew Paweski:
I've been working commercially here in Tempe for the last four years for a business doing contract work for large home developers throughout the valley. I'm interested in the imagery that's produced through home construction and the styles that are given to individual communities. Whether its Tuscan villas or Mediterranean style living or bayside living in the desert. My commercial work has taught me a lot about construction and how to manipulate materials and technical processes. I use all those same things I've learned in my artwork. And I try to bring the commercial work I do and my art together.

Merry Lucero:
Gazing into the future, looking back at the past and focusing on the here and now creates questions about our changing city and anticipates answers about what makes our city so special.

Michael Grant:
The exhibition at the ASU Art Museum runs now through January 27, 2007. To see video of this and other Horizon segments via the internet please go to our web site at azpbs.org and click on Horizon.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

New American City Exhibition

New American City: Artists Look Forward at the ASU Art Museum explores some of the design, culture, and art that distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities. Youth, astronomical growth, geographic limitations, desert environment and its active arts community are some of the themes exhibited in the work. The exhibition looks at how artists and the art being produced plays an active role in envisioning the city’s future, developing areas and revitalizing neighborhoods in the process.

Guests:

Corey Woods - Director, Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona

Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon -- voters have passed a ban on smoking in all public places with just a few exceptions. When does that ban go into effect? How will it be enforced? We'll look at the statewide smoking ban. Plus, Jim Lehrer has anchored PBS NewsHour since 1975. One of the most respected and accomplished journalists in the country. Jim Lehrer talks about his latest novel, "The Phony Marine", the results of last week's election and the future of journalism. And "New American City: Artists Look Forward" is the featured exhibition at the ASU Art Museum. It explores the rapid changes and the growth of the city of Phoenix. Those stories next on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by contributions from the friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening, welcome to Horizon, I'm Michael Grant. Congressman J.D. Hayworth is conceding the race for the fifth congressional district. The six term congressman put up a statement on his website, congratulating Democrat Harry Mitchell for his likely victory. Hayworth says that while there are still tens of thousands of votes left to count, it has become apparent that it is unlikely he will get enough votes to win the election. Hayworth trails Mitchell by 65 hundred votes. The top four staff members of the state senate will not be coming back for the new legislative session. Incoming Senate President Tim Bee has terminated the chief of staff/general counsel, the operations/legal adviser, senior policy adviser and the communications and policy adviser. Those four staff members will reportedly be leaving the Senate by the end of the week. A group of individuals and organizations filed a lawsuit today in the state supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of two statutes, enacted by the state legislature last spring. Those laws authorize vouchers at religious and other private schools for a limited number of children who are in foster care or are disabled. The case was brought against Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and State Treasurer David Petersen. We will hear from both sides of this issue on tomorrow's Horizon. Last week, voters passed a statewide ban on smoking in most public places. That ban includes the interior of bars and restaurants. Some business owners have expressed concerns that the ban will run customers away, cause them to lose money, possibly even shut down. The measure includes a per-pack tax on cigarettes. That provision will go into effect the soonest. Here now to talk about the new ban on smoking in public places is Corey Woods. He is the director of Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona. Corey, welcome to the program.

Corey Woods:
Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Michael Grant:
You know, I'm trying to remember my election law. I seem to recall we have to wait for what? The official canvas by the secretary of state and then the governor declares it?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. One of these we talked about was the election would be certified in about approximately 30 days and at that point the two-cent tobacco tax would actually go into effect. The smoke-free provisions of the law of Smoke-Free Arizona will not actually go into effect until May 1 of 2007.

Michael Grant:
And the delay is for what reason?

Corey Woods:
The delay is to allow business owners to kind of get comfortable with the law. You know, this whole thing isn't supposed to be punitive with us. It's about education. We want to allow people to have sign postings properly; we want to set up an 800 number, a website, in order for people to be properly educated about this law. We don't want to start fining people $100 to $500 for infractions. It's for proper education and to allow people to sort of get comfortable with the idea and not just--- you know, some people came up to me and said, well Corey, why don't you just have it go into effect November 8? That's not fair to Arizona business owners and that's not fair to the citizens of Arizona. We wanted to give them enough time to get comfortable with the law and provide proper education.

Michael Grant:
Now, you've got a two-cent a pack tax. That funds enforcement activities by the Department of Health Services. I thought that 206 campaign ripped off a pretty good line about the Maytag repairman as we were discussing earlier. I assume part of the delay as well will allow Department of Health Services to ramp up on the enforcement side of this thing?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. The two-cent per pack tobacco tax will allow for approximately $4.7 million to go to the Department of Health Services to have them fund this. Also the Department of Health Services can in mutual cooperation with the local county come up with a way to enforce the law. One of the things we didn't want to happen obviously was- a lot of people talked about-- there was a lot of misinformation obviously spread by the 206 people concerning the issue. They were saying that, you know, we don't want the police force being distracted away from crimes like muggings and shootings to worry about cigarettes. And we didn't, either. Our main thing is we obviously talked to having the Department of Health Services do this because we don't want our local police being overburdened and having to deal with issues like tobacco and cigarettes, things like that in bars. But the $4.7 million from the two-cent per pack tobacco tax will pay for the enforcement.

Michael Grant: Corey, why wasn't 206 a better solution on this thing? Why wasn't-- particularly in a bar setting allowing a bar owner and for that matter, adults, to make a decision and say, okay, well I'm going to allow it here and incidentally I'm going to post it and if you don't like it, don't come in. Why wasn't that a better solution?

Corey Woods:
Well, the biggest concern with us was the public health issue. Approximately 53,000 people each year die of issues-causes-- of diseases actually related to secondhand smoke. The American Lung Association for instance is a nonpartisan well-respected health organization. And we only do things related to the science. One of the things when I was first hired was I was told explicitly by the people who I worked for we don't do things to support political agenda or political party or candidate. But if the science shows it's a legitimate public health issue concern we have to then act to take care of that. One of the things we saw were waiters and waitresses, for instance, in bars were two times more likely to develop respiratory illnesses, things of that nature. And so one of the things we wanted to do obviously was when we saw this kind of issue in the 53,000 people each year that were being affected by this and the kind of illnesses such as retarded fetal syndrome, asthma, lower respiratory illnesses, we decided it was at that point we decided to step in along with the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to do something about this issue.

Michael Grant:
Corey, I understand. But unfortunately a lot of people put themselves in a lot of dumb positions. And we go ahead and we let them put themselves in dumb positions. Why does this call for this level of government intervention?

Corey Woods:
Well, one of the things we look at, a lot of times people talk to us about the bar and restaurant issue. People will say, well Corey, if, you know, someone wants to go into an establishment like this what's the issue? They obviously have that choice. However, businesses and the public operate with some sort of mutually cooperative relationship. If -- we obviously have food regulations, for instance. We make sure people are selling wholesome food and drink in their bars. Meat has to be kept at a certain temperature. We have to make sure that the kitchen is clean and not infested with rats or anything like that or mice. So obviously in those kinds of issues where those are public health issues, we have organizations that come in and regulate that and make sure that everything looks okay there. We obviously don't want the public getting sick in certain kinds of establishments. And it's the same kind of thing we looked at in terms of secondhand smoke. We considered it to be a legitimate health risk and we thought in that kind of same situation along the same line, whether it's serving wholesome food and drink, that the people, the patrons of the restaurant as well as the workers have a right to live and work in a clean environment. The main issue I always look at is that we don't feel that people should have to choose between their health and their job. And that's the main issue I tried to look at especially.

Michael Grant:
Now, one aspect of 201 is localities can go with a more stringent measure. Looking around the state obviously there are some no smoking ordinances. Is there any measure-- my feel is that 201 is fairly consistent with most of the ordinances that are in place. For example, here in Tempe and some other localities. Is that roughly correct?

Corey Woods:
I would say that the 201 ban is very consistent with the bans in Tempe, Flagstaff and Sedona. The 206 ban I do think was sort of modeled- well, they claim, after the ordinances currently in Tucson and Chandler. But I think that ours was definitely -- when we first crafted ours we looked at a lot of the smoke free ordinances around- just nationwide, and we tried to look at what was right about those and what was wrong with those. And so, but ours was definitely crafted after the ones we saw that were right. We added some things, took some things away.

Michael Grant:
You know, Jim Lehrer as the host of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which precedes Horizon here on Eight. Lehrer is one of the most respected journalists in the country. He has been nicknamed "the dean of moderators" by those who have appreciated his call for objectivity in the newsroom. He is also an author. His latest novel is "The Phony Marine". Lehrer was in Phoenix over the weekend to participate in the 27th Annual Author's luncheon. Larry Lemmons caught up with him at the Westin Kierland.

Larry Lemmons:
We are taping this on Veterans Day so I want to wish you a Happy Veterans' Day because I know that you are a former Marine. Well, of course in terms of your speech you are always.

Jim Lehrer:
Always a Marine.

Larry Lemmons:
That's right.

Jim Lehrer:
Same to you.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you very much. Well, not a Marine.

Jim Lehrer:
No, but a veteran.

Larry Lemmons:
Absolutely. I'd like to bring that around to your latest novel "A Phony Marine" which is why you're here in Arizona today. It's my understanding that a man buys a medal, is that correct?

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah. He's posing as a marine. It's a man in his late 50's, Vietnam-era person who chose not to go into the military. Not a draft dodger or anything. He just didn't go. His number didn't get called, he didn't volunteer. He had always thought he might want to be a marine but he never did do it. And now, forward, he's a man in his late 50's. He's selling clothes, men's clothes in Washington, D.C. and one thing leads to another. His life has been kind of what you'd call a level life. Not a lot's happened. And -- but he's a successful clothing salesman but that's about it. Any rate, he, on the internet, buys a Silver Star medal, the entire set, which means the medal itself, a ribbon that you would wear and then also a little lapel pin that you would wear with a civilian code that you put in your lapel and anybody seeing it would say oh, my goodness, he won a Silver Star, which is an interesting- you know, it has- it brings--

Larry Lemmons:
It has a very specific connotation.

Jim Lehrer:
Right. That this person had to do something heroic or he or she would not be wearing this Silver Star. At any rate, he starts wearing it and of course draws attention. People start expecting, oh, my goodness. Hey. Hey. So he creates a story for himself. And he kind of recreates himself as a former marine. Gets a haircut, loses his paunch, gets in shape, learns how to cuss, does all those things, gets some history and kind of makes up his own history. He kind of copies the story of the real marine that he got off the internet, the real marine who actually won the Silver Star that he bought off this e-bay auction. And it works. I mean, he's able to pass himself off as a marine. And without going into any more of the detail of the story --

Larry Lemmons:
Don't give away the plot.

Jim Lehrer: Don't want to give away the plot. But what it does is create expectations. If you are expected to be a jerk then sometimes people act like jerks. If you're expected to be a really good person you act like a good person. And it's the power of expectations to actually have a cause, I mean, have an effect is kind of what this book is about. Because he-- because people expect him to be a hero, because he wears a Silver Star he gets himself in a couple of situations where he has to--

Larry Lemmons:
Live up to it.

Jim Lehrer:
Live up to his expectations. That's essentially what the book is about.

Larry Lemmons:
What prompted you to write this book considering you were a marine? Was there something specific?

Jim Lehrer:
Several little things I think that kind of build up. It's a long, involved story. To make it very brief, I was introduced by somebody making a speech. And he had misunderstood what my biography was. And he said to this group, two, 300 people. He said, here's Jim Lehrer. You may know he's this and this and this. But what you may not know is that he was a combat infantry officer, a platoon commander in the Korean War. And I saw the look on the faces of these people. And there was this kind of admiration, whatever it is. I saw it and I didn't want it to go away. And I didn't -- what really stuck with me -- and that was many years ago, Larry. And before this book actually started working on this book. But what stuck in me was that -- and I did correct him. I did say, no, no, I was a marine officer but I was not in combat.

Larry Lemmons:
But you were tempted.

Jim Lehrer:
Exactly. It's the temptation to be something you're not because of what comes with that. And I -- it kind of stuck in my mind. So anyhow, one thing led to another and I finally got around to writing the book.

Larry Lemmons:
Well let's talk about the election. I know that polls suggested before that democrats could capture both the House and the Senate. People didn't know if that could happen. Of course, it did happen. What do you think is in store for America in the next two years?

Jim Lehrer:
Well, it's kind of complicated in some ways but it's also very simple, it seems to me. I don't have any unique wisdom to bring to this except that I think the voters said is, hey, all you people out there on the left, all you people out there over on the right, well, there are 80\% of us in the middle who are some of us are slightly conservative and some of us are slightly liberal and there are some of us slightly this and that and whatever. We don't like how you extremists have been running the country is what it really boils down to, and the extremists meaning not just President Bush and his folks but also the liberals. In other words, the idea that games are being played, political games, rather than governing. And I think the country just said, no, no, let's govern now. And we're less interested. Most Americans are not ideologically bent, let's face it. They're issue oriented. And the Iraq War -- I've had people since I've been in Phoenix said to me, you know, I'm a huge republican. I'm a huge supporter of George W. Bush but I'm sick of this war. And you can put that in any context you want to. This is being driven -- this election was driven by ordinary folks in the middle who just want -- they're not interested necessarily in a right wing solution to the war or a left wing solution to the war. They just want something better. They want it fixed. They want somebody with an idea. And hey, more importantly they want the people in charge to take charge and get it together and work together to get these things resolved. War is only one of the things. There are many, many other things involved, too. And I think that's the message. And what this means in the long run could be that in 2008, if these people don't do anything -- in other words, if they go into a lager head situation and can't get anything done they're going to throw them out, too. I mean, I think the people have said, we're just sick of this. We're sick of this kind of bickering. And not only bickering but the nastiness of the campaign. You know, the nastiness of this campaign I thought was extraordinary.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it the worst that you'd ever seen?

Jim Lehrer:
I have never seen-

Larry Lemmons:
Really?

Jim Lehrer:
Oh, yeah. I mean, it wasn't so much that it was- that people said nastier things. It's just that everybody was saying nasty things about everybody else. They weren't really talking about, hey now, vote for me because I have a solution to the immigration problem. Vote for me because I think this would be the better way to do-- to handle Iraq. It was always, vote for me because this other guy's a crook. And then when you examine what he or she did, you find it's all gray. In other words, it's the idea that when you're running in politics the bottle is always half full negatively. And I think the public's sick of that. And I think that's one of the-- I may be dead wrong about this. Maybe it's hope as much as it is reality. But I know I'm sick of it. And that and a nickel gets you four cents. But I think the public's with me on this one.

Larry Lemmons:
Well even your answer here suggests to me your objectivity. In other parts of the world, Britain for example, you have publications that are very specifically, politically left or right. Lately, relatively recently, you've seen that in America as well. I won't name any names.

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But not The NewsHour, of course. I mean The NewsHour has always been held up as an example of perfect objectivity, both now with The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer and also the old McNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. Why do you think that's important?

Jim Lehrer:
Look, there are three legitimate forms of journalism. There are straight news reporting, analysis and opinion. And essentially, okay, what happened, what does it mean, and what should I think about it? The news hour, PBS, I think all of PBS should be and The NewsHour definitely is, should be in the first part of that in terms of what we do ourselves. Then we can bring analyzers on and we can bring opinion people on. But they should be separated functions. Same people should not do all three of them. And everything should be carefully labeled. I believe that the first job of journalism is to tell the folks what happened. What happened? Not what it all means, all that sort of stuff. Just tell them exactly what happened. And then everybody has a shared knowledge on which then they can then find out what it means and they can separate on opinions and all that sort of stuff. If you don't have the platform from which to jump off on to, on to a blog or onto a call in show or Jon to Jon Stewart or whatever then everything gets distorted from the beginning. And I think as some of these other mediums, other -- let me put this gently but some of the other purveyors of the news, they're running scared. They've got so many competitors now because of the internet. And everybody is worried about this and that. Oh, my god, they're not going to read newspapers. They're not going to watch television news anymore. So what are they doing? They're distorting their function. And in the process they are eliminating their function. Because for instance, somebody says to me, oh, I don't watch the news hour. It's not entertaining. And I say, yeah, you're exactly right, my friend. And if you want to be entertained you go to the circus. You don't watch the news. You don't -- particularly don't watch the news hour. I mean, that's not our function. And I mean, Garrison Keillo is the one who says it beautifully. I was at a dinner once many years ago. He was at one of these big journalism dinners. I was in the crowd. He said, you want to have a short life in journalism? You go down the entertainment route. Because the clowns and the snake oil salesmen and the movie stars, they're much better at entertaining than you are. Nobody is better at reporting than you are. So why don't you stay in your own business if you want to stay? I'm paraphrasing that but I believe that with all my heart and soul. And some of these folks are going to -- are learning it the hard way. I think we're seeing this in network television news. I think CBS for instance made a decision they could change the nature of the nightly news program, for getting that these 30, 40 million people who tune in to watch the nightly news program, what do they tune in for? To see the news, to hear the news. They don't turn in to be entertained. They wouldn't they wanted to be entertained. I'm not suggesting anything bad about Katie Couric or CBS but they better be careful. Because they are -- in their own hands they are fooling with the instruments of their own destruction if they are not careful.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Jim Lehrer for visiting us today.

Jim Lehrer:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
The future of Phoenix is being chronicled through the eyes of Phoenix artists at ASU Art Museum's exhibition -- new American city: artist's look forward. The exhibition distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities by focusing on the desert environment, geographic limitations and astronomical growth that the city of Phoenix has to offer. The exhibition explores the role of artists and the art being produced in this context.

Merry Lucero: Imagine the future of Phoenix. But what do we want our city to look like? What distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities? These are the questions asked in Arizona State University's art competition, "New American City, Artists Look Forward." A group of 23 Maricopa County-based artists were chosen to not only contribute something reflective of the rapid growth of the city but to create artwork that will spark ideas and feelings about the here and now of our changing city.

Heather Lineberry:
Since this is such an important moment in our history, you talk to politicians, economists, developers, academics, geographers, art activists, activists. They're all clear that this is a time we need to consider who we are and who we want to be in the future.

Merry Lucero: Works range from installations of land art and art with new technologies to paintings and photography that reflect personal impressions of living and working in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Heather Lineberry:
The competition features 12 drawings by Wellington Rider known as Duke Rider. Duke has said that architectural drawings should be an opportunity for artists to innovate, experiment, consider our built environment to really consider the possibilities broadly. And that's what he does in this series of drawings about sky harbor airport. He takes into account future changes that are going to have to happen. Are we going to have to build closer and closer to the airport itself? Are we going to be able to drive into the airport in the future? Maybe not. So how are we going to handle people actually arriving at the airport by car? So he covers the range of possibilities with the future development of the airport.

Merry Lucero:
Future developments are indeed thriving. But the desire to take a look back seems to be resurfacing as well.

Heather Lineberry:
Matthew Moore is a fourth generation farmer here in the greater Phoenix area. And he's also an artist. This piece was really his exploration of what the growth in the valley mean toss his family's way of life. And yet it's not a white. He realizes that on his land are going to be built houses that is someone's American dream.

Merry Lucero:
Matthew Paweski city bases his work on his experiences as a sign painter here in the city of Phoenix.

Matthew Paweski:
I've been working commercially here in Tempe for the last four years for a business doing contract work for large home developers throughout the valley. I'm interested in the imagery that's produced through home construction and the styles that are given to individual communities. Whether its Tuscan villas or Mediterranean style living or bayside living in the desert. My commercial work has taught me a lot about construction and how to manipulate materials and technical processes. I use all those same things I've learned in my artwork. And I try to bring the commercial work I do and my art together.

Merry Lucero:
Gazing into the future, looking back at the past and focusing on the here and now creates questions about our changing city and anticipates answers about what makes our city so special.

Michael Grant:
The exhibition at the ASU Art Museum runs now through January 27, 2007. To see video of this and other Horizon segments via the internet please go to our web site at azpbs.org and click on Horizon.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

smoking Ban

Voters have passed a statewide ban on smoking in most public places, including bars and restaurants. Part of the measure includes an addition tax on cigarettes. When will the different provisions go into effect? Corey Woods, Director of Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona joins HORIZON to explain the details.

Guests:

Corey Woods - Director, Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona

Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon -- voters have passed a ban on smoking in all public places with just a few exceptions. When does that ban go into effect? How will it be enforced? We'll look at the statewide smoking ban. Plus, Jim Lehrer has anchored PBS NewsHour since 1975. One of the most respected and accomplished journalists in the country. Jim Lehrer talks about his latest novel, "The Phony Marine", the results of last week's election and the future of journalism. And "New American City: Artists Look Forward" is the featured exhibition at the ASU Art Museum. It explores the rapid changes and the growth of the city of Phoenix. Those stories next on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by contributions from the friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening, welcome to Horizon, I'm Michael Grant. Congressman J.D. Hayworth is conceding the race for the fifth congressional district. The six term congressman put up a statement on his website, congratulating Democrat Harry Mitchell for his likely victory. Hayworth says that while there are still tens of thousands of votes left to count, it has become apparent that it is unlikely he will get enough votes to win the election. Hayworth trails Mitchell by 65 hundred votes. The top four staff members of the state senate will not be coming back for the new legislative session. Incoming Senate President Tim Bee has terminated the chief of staff/general counsel, the operations/legal adviser, senior policy adviser and the communications and policy adviser. Those four staff members will reportedly be leaving the Senate by the end of the week. A group of individuals and organizations filed a lawsuit today in the state supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of two statutes, enacted by the state legislature last spring. Those laws authorize vouchers at religious and other private schools for a limited number of children who are in foster care or are disabled. The case was brought against Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and State Treasurer David Petersen. We will hear from both sides of this issue on tomorrow's Horizon. Last week, voters passed a statewide ban on smoking in most public places. That ban includes the interior of bars and restaurants. Some business owners have expressed concerns that the ban will run customers away, cause them to lose money, possibly even shut down. The measure includes a per-pack tax on cigarettes. That provision will go into effect the soonest. Here now to talk about the new ban on smoking in public places is Corey Woods. He is the director of Government Relations for the American Lung Association of Arizona. Corey, welcome to the program.

Corey Woods:
Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Michael Grant:
You know, I'm trying to remember my election law. I seem to recall we have to wait for what? The official canvas by the secretary of state and then the governor declares it?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. One of these we talked about was the election would be certified in about approximately 30 days and at that point the two-cent tobacco tax would actually go into effect. The smoke-free provisions of the law of Smoke-Free Arizona will not actually go into effect until May 1 of 2007.

Michael Grant:
And the delay is for what reason?

Corey Woods:
The delay is to allow business owners to kind of get comfortable with the law. You know, this whole thing isn't supposed to be punitive with us. It's about education. We want to allow people to have sign postings properly; we want to set up an 800 number, a website, in order for people to be properly educated about this law. We don't want to start fining people $100 to $500 for infractions. It's for proper education and to allow people to sort of get comfortable with the idea and not just--- you know, some people came up to me and said, well Corey, why don't you just have it go into effect November 8? That's not fair to Arizona business owners and that's not fair to the citizens of Arizona. We wanted to give them enough time to get comfortable with the law and provide proper education.

Michael Grant:
Now, you've got a two-cent a pack tax. That funds enforcement activities by the Department of Health Services. I thought that 206 campaign ripped off a pretty good line about the Maytag repairman as we were discussing earlier. I assume part of the delay as well will allow Department of Health Services to ramp up on the enforcement side of this thing?

Corey Woods:
Exactly. The two-cent per pack tobacco tax will allow for approximately $4.7 million to go to the Department of Health Services to have them fund this. Also the Department of Health Services can in mutual cooperation with the local county come up with a way to enforce the law. One of the things we didn't want to happen obviously was- a lot of people talked about-- there was a lot of misinformation obviously spread by the 206 people concerning the issue. They were saying that, you know, we don't want the police force being distracted away from crimes like muggings and shootings to worry about cigarettes. And we didn't, either. Our main thing is we obviously talked to having the Department of Health Services do this because we don't want our local police being overburdened and having to deal with issues like tobacco and cigarettes, things like that in bars. But the $4.7 million from the two-cent per pack tobacco tax will pay for the enforcement.

Michael Grant: Corey, why wasn't 206 a better solution on this thing? Why wasn't-- particularly in a bar setting allowing a bar owner and for that matter, adults, to make a decision and say, okay, well I'm going to allow it here and incidentally I'm going to post it and if you don't like it, don't come in. Why wasn't that a better solution?

Corey Woods:
Well, the biggest concern with us was the public health issue. Approximately 53,000 people each year die of issues-causes-- of diseases actually related to secondhand smoke. The American Lung Association for instance is a nonpartisan well-respected health organization. And we only do things related to the science. One of the things when I was first hired was I was told explicitly by the people who I worked for we don't do things to support political agenda or political party or candidate. But if the science shows it's a legitimate public health issue concern we have to then act to take care of that. One of the things we saw were waiters and waitresses, for instance, in bars were two times more likely to develop respiratory illnesses, things of that nature. And so one of the things we wanted to do obviously was when we saw this kind of issue in the 53,000 people each year that were being affected by this and the kind of illnesses such as retarded fetal syndrome, asthma, lower respiratory illnesses, we decided it was at that point we decided to step in along with the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to do something about this issue.

Michael Grant:
Corey, I understand. But unfortunately a lot of people put themselves in a lot of dumb positions. And we go ahead and we let them put themselves in dumb positions. Why does this call for this level of government intervention?

Corey Woods:
Well, one of the things we look at, a lot of times people talk to us about the bar and restaurant issue. People will say, well Corey, if, you know, someone wants to go into an establishment like this what's the issue? They obviously have that choice. However, businesses and the public operate with some sort of mutually cooperative relationship. If -- we obviously have food regulations, for instance. We make sure people are selling wholesome food and drink in their bars. Meat has to be kept at a certain temperature. We have to make sure that the kitchen is clean and not infested with rats or anything like that or mice. So obviously in those kinds of issues where those are public health issues, we have organizations that come in and regulate that and make sure that everything looks okay there. We obviously don't want the public getting sick in certain kinds of establishments. And it's the same kind of thing we looked at in terms of secondhand smoke. We considered it to be a legitimate health risk and we thought in that kind of same situation along the same line, whether it's serving wholesome food and drink, that the people, the patrons of the restaurant as well as the workers have a right to live and work in a clean environment. The main issue I always look at is that we don't feel that people should have to choose between their health and their job. And that's the main issue I tried to look at especially.

Michael Grant:
Now, one aspect of 201 is localities can go with a more stringent measure. Looking around the state obviously there are some no smoking ordinances. Is there any measure-- my feel is that 201 is fairly consistent with most of the ordinances that are in place. For example, here in Tempe and some other localities. Is that roughly correct?

Corey Woods:
I would say that the 201 ban is very consistent with the bans in Tempe, Flagstaff and Sedona. The 206 ban I do think was sort of modeled- well, they claim, after the ordinances currently in Tucson and Chandler. But I think that ours was definitely -- when we first crafted ours we looked at a lot of the smoke free ordinances around- just nationwide, and we tried to look at what was right about those and what was wrong with those. And so, but ours was definitely crafted after the ones we saw that were right. We added some things, took some things away.

Michael Grant:
You know, Jim Lehrer as the host of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which precedes Horizon here on Eight. Lehrer is one of the most respected journalists in the country. He has been nicknamed "the dean of moderators" by those who have appreciated his call for objectivity in the newsroom. He is also an author. His latest novel is "The Phony Marine". Lehrer was in Phoenix over the weekend to participate in the 27th Annual Author's luncheon. Larry Lemmons caught up with him at the Westin Kierland.

Larry Lemmons:
We are taping this on Veterans Day so I want to wish you a Happy Veterans' Day because I know that you are a former Marine. Well, of course in terms of your speech you are always.

Jim Lehrer:
Always a Marine.

Larry Lemmons:
That's right.

Jim Lehrer:
Same to you.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you very much. Well, not a Marine.

Jim Lehrer:
No, but a veteran.

Larry Lemmons:
Absolutely. I'd like to bring that around to your latest novel "A Phony Marine" which is why you're here in Arizona today. It's my understanding that a man buys a medal, is that correct?

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah. He's posing as a marine. It's a man in his late 50's, Vietnam-era person who chose not to go into the military. Not a draft dodger or anything. He just didn't go. His number didn't get called, he didn't volunteer. He had always thought he might want to be a marine but he never did do it. And now, forward, he's a man in his late 50's. He's selling clothes, men's clothes in Washington, D.C. and one thing leads to another. His life has been kind of what you'd call a level life. Not a lot's happened. And -- but he's a successful clothing salesman but that's about it. Any rate, he, on the internet, buys a Silver Star medal, the entire set, which means the medal itself, a ribbon that you would wear and then also a little lapel pin that you would wear with a civilian code that you put in your lapel and anybody seeing it would say oh, my goodness, he won a Silver Star, which is an interesting- you know, it has- it brings--

Larry Lemmons:
It has a very specific connotation.

Jim Lehrer:
Right. That this person had to do something heroic or he or she would not be wearing this Silver Star. At any rate, he starts wearing it and of course draws attention. People start expecting, oh, my goodness. Hey. Hey. So he creates a story for himself. And he kind of recreates himself as a former marine. Gets a haircut, loses his paunch, gets in shape, learns how to cuss, does all those things, gets some history and kind of makes up his own history. He kind of copies the story of the real marine that he got off the internet, the real marine who actually won the Silver Star that he bought off this e-bay auction. And it works. I mean, he's able to pass himself off as a marine. And without going into any more of the detail of the story --

Larry Lemmons:
Don't give away the plot.

Jim Lehrer: Don't want to give away the plot. But what it does is create expectations. If you are expected to be a jerk then sometimes people act like jerks. If you're expected to be a really good person you act like a good person. And it's the power of expectations to actually have a cause, I mean, have an effect is kind of what this book is about. Because he-- because people expect him to be a hero, because he wears a Silver Star he gets himself in a couple of situations where he has to--

Larry Lemmons:
Live up to it.

Jim Lehrer:
Live up to his expectations. That's essentially what the book is about.

Larry Lemmons:
What prompted you to write this book considering you were a marine? Was there something specific?

Jim Lehrer:
Several little things I think that kind of build up. It's a long, involved story. To make it very brief, I was introduced by somebody making a speech. And he had misunderstood what my biography was. And he said to this group, two, 300 people. He said, here's Jim Lehrer. You may know he's this and this and this. But what you may not know is that he was a combat infantry officer, a platoon commander in the Korean War. And I saw the look on the faces of these people. And there was this kind of admiration, whatever it is. I saw it and I didn't want it to go away. And I didn't -- what really stuck with me -- and that was many years ago, Larry. And before this book actually started working on this book. But what stuck in me was that -- and I did correct him. I did say, no, no, I was a marine officer but I was not in combat.

Larry Lemmons:
But you were tempted.

Jim Lehrer:
Exactly. It's the temptation to be something you're not because of what comes with that. And I -- it kind of stuck in my mind. So anyhow, one thing led to another and I finally got around to writing the book.

Larry Lemmons:
Well let's talk about the election. I know that polls suggested before that democrats could capture both the House and the Senate. People didn't know if that could happen. Of course, it did happen. What do you think is in store for America in the next two years?

Jim Lehrer:
Well, it's kind of complicated in some ways but it's also very simple, it seems to me. I don't have any unique wisdom to bring to this except that I think the voters said is, hey, all you people out there on the left, all you people out there over on the right, well, there are 80\% of us in the middle who are some of us are slightly conservative and some of us are slightly liberal and there are some of us slightly this and that and whatever. We don't like how you extremists have been running the country is what it really boils down to, and the extremists meaning not just President Bush and his folks but also the liberals. In other words, the idea that games are being played, political games, rather than governing. And I think the country just said, no, no, let's govern now. And we're less interested. Most Americans are not ideologically bent, let's face it. They're issue oriented. And the Iraq War -- I've had people since I've been in Phoenix said to me, you know, I'm a huge republican. I'm a huge supporter of George W. Bush but I'm sick of this war. And you can put that in any context you want to. This is being driven -- this election was driven by ordinary folks in the middle who just want -- they're not interested necessarily in a right wing solution to the war or a left wing solution to the war. They just want something better. They want it fixed. They want somebody with an idea. And hey, more importantly they want the people in charge to take charge and get it together and work together to get these things resolved. War is only one of the things. There are many, many other things involved, too. And I think that's the message. And what this means in the long run could be that in 2008, if these people don't do anything -- in other words, if they go into a lager head situation and can't get anything done they're going to throw them out, too. I mean, I think the people have said, we're just sick of this. We're sick of this kind of bickering. And not only bickering but the nastiness of the campaign. You know, the nastiness of this campaign I thought was extraordinary.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it the worst that you'd ever seen?

Jim Lehrer:
I have never seen-

Larry Lemmons:
Really?

Jim Lehrer:
Oh, yeah. I mean, it wasn't so much that it was- that people said nastier things. It's just that everybody was saying nasty things about everybody else. They weren't really talking about, hey now, vote for me because I have a solution to the immigration problem. Vote for me because I think this would be the better way to do-- to handle Iraq. It was always, vote for me because this other guy's a crook. And then when you examine what he or she did, you find it's all gray. In other words, it's the idea that when you're running in politics the bottle is always half full negatively. And I think the public's sick of that. And I think that's one of the-- I may be dead wrong about this. Maybe it's hope as much as it is reality. But I know I'm sick of it. And that and a nickel gets you four cents. But I think the public's with me on this one.

Larry Lemmons:
Well even your answer here suggests to me your objectivity. In other parts of the world, Britain for example, you have publications that are very specifically, politically left or right. Lately, relatively recently, you've seen that in America as well. I won't name any names.

Jim Lehrer:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But not The NewsHour, of course. I mean The NewsHour has always been held up as an example of perfect objectivity, both now with The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer and also the old McNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. Why do you think that's important?

Jim Lehrer:
Look, there are three legitimate forms of journalism. There are straight news reporting, analysis and opinion. And essentially, okay, what happened, what does it mean, and what should I think about it? The news hour, PBS, I think all of PBS should be and The NewsHour definitely is, should be in the first part of that in terms of what we do ourselves. Then we can bring analyzers on and we can bring opinion people on. But they should be separated functions. Same people should not do all three of them. And everything should be carefully labeled. I believe that the first job of journalism is to tell the folks what happened. What happened? Not what it all means, all that sort of stuff. Just tell them exactly what happened. And then everybody has a shared knowledge on which then they can then find out what it means and they can separate on opinions and all that sort of stuff. If you don't have the platform from which to jump off on to, on to a blog or onto a call in show or Jon to Jon Stewart or whatever then everything gets distorted from the beginning. And I think as some of these other mediums, other -- let me put this gently but some of the other purveyors of the news, they're running scared. They've got so many competitors now because of the internet. And everybody is worried about this and that. Oh, my god, they're not going to read newspapers. They're not going to watch television news anymore. So what are they doing? They're distorting their function. And in the process they are eliminating their function. Because for instance, somebody says to me, oh, I don't watch the news hour. It's not entertaining. And I say, yeah, you're exactly right, my friend. And if you want to be entertained you go to the circus. You don't watch the news. You don't -- particularly don't watch the news hour. I mean, that's not our function. And I mean, Garrison Keillo is the one who says it beautifully. I was at a dinner once many years ago. He was at one of these big journalism dinners. I was in the crowd. He said, you want to have a short life in journalism? You go down the entertainment route. Because the clowns and the snake oil salesmen and the movie stars, they're much better at entertaining than you are. Nobody is better at reporting than you are. So why don't you stay in your own business if you want to stay? I'm paraphrasing that but I believe that with all my heart and soul. And some of these folks are going to -- are learning it the hard way. I think we're seeing this in network television news. I think CBS for instance made a decision they could change the nature of the nightly news program, for getting that these 30, 40 million people who tune in to watch the nightly news program, what do they tune in for? To see the news, to hear the news. They don't turn in to be entertained. They wouldn't they wanted to be entertained. I'm not suggesting anything bad about Katie Couric or CBS but they better be careful. Because they are -- in their own hands they are fooling with the instruments of their own destruction if they are not careful.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Jim Lehrer for visiting us today.

Jim Lehrer:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
The future of Phoenix is being chronicled through the eyes of Phoenix artists at ASU Art Museum's exhibition -- new American city: artist's look forward. The exhibition distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities by focusing on the desert environment, geographic limitations and astronomical growth that the city of Phoenix has to offer. The exhibition explores the role of artists and the art being produced in this context.

Merry Lucero: Imagine the future of Phoenix. But what do we want our city to look like? What distinguishes the Phoenix area from other cities? These are the questions asked in Arizona State University's art competition, "New American City, Artists Look Forward." A group of 23 Maricopa County-based artists were chosen to not only contribute something reflective of the rapid growth of the city but to create artwork that will spark ideas and feelings about the here and now of our changing city.

Heather Lineberry:
Since this is such an important moment in our history, you talk to politicians, economists, developers, academics, geographers, art activists, activists. They're all clear that this is a time we need to consider who we are and who we want to be in the future.

Merry Lucero: Works range from installations of land art and art with new technologies to paintings and photography that reflect personal impressions of living and working in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Heather Lineberry:
The competition features 12 drawings by Wellington Rider known as Duke Rider. Duke has said that architectural drawings should be an opportunity for artists to innovate, experiment, consider our built environment to really consider the possibilities broadly. And that's what he does in this series of drawings about sky harbor airport. He takes into account future changes that are going to have to happen. Are we going to have to build closer and closer to the airport itself? Are we going to be able to drive into the airport in the future? Maybe not. So how are we going to handle people actually arriving at the airport by car? So he covers the range of possibilities with the future development of the airport.

Merry Lucero:
Future developments are indeed thriving. But the desire to take a look back seems to be resurfacing as well.

Heather Lineberry:
Matthew Moore is a fourth generation farmer here in the greater Phoenix area. And he's also an artist. This piece was really his exploration of what the growth in the valley mean toss his family's way of life. And yet it's not a white. He realizes that on his land are going to be built houses that is someone's American dream.

Merry Lucero:
Matthew Paweski city bases his work on his experiences as a sign painter here in the city of Phoenix.

Matthew Paweski:
I've been working commercially here in Tempe for the last four years for a business doing contract work for large home developers throughout the valley. I'm interested in the imagery that's produced through home construction and the styles that are given to individual communities. Whether its Tuscan villas or Mediterranean style living or bayside living in the desert. My commercial work has taught me a lot about construction and how to manipulate materials and technical processes. I use all those same things I've learned in my artwork. And I try to bring the commercial work I do and my art together.

Merry Lucero:
Gazing into the future, looking back at the past and focusing on the here and now creates questions about our changing city and anticipates answers about what makes our city so special.

Michael Grant:
The exhibition at the ASU Art Museum runs now through January 27, 2007. To see video of this and other Horizon segments via the internet please go to our web site at azpbs.org and click on Horizon.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.